An Unfortunate Experiment Strikes Again

But the organisation formed to call it out is MIA

Whatever happens to the bill to define sex currently before parliament, one thing it has achieved is showing us who people or organisations really are.

We see the Public Service Association oppose it, Labour, Greens and Te Pati Maori oppose it, the National Council of Women oppose it, the Minister for Women offering a lukewarm endorsement before sending it to select committee and now, Women’s Health Action has told us:

“It is not a priority, and it is not something our organisation – or the communities we work alongside – have called for.”

The latter offends me most of all. A long time ago, and in a land far away, I was briefly associated with Women’s Health Action, when it was known as Fertility Action. The real drivers for the establishment of this group were two energetic women’s health activists, Sandra Coney and Phillida Bunkle. They formed Fertility Action in 1984, originally to publicise the dangers of one particular intra-uterine contraceptive device (IUD), the Dalkon Shield. This focus soon expanded to other contraceptive devices and women’s health in general.

In 1987 Bunkle and Coney published an article in Metro magazine exposing a trial at National Women’s Hospital in Auckland, which had involved withholding treatment from women with abnormal cervical smears. The women were not informed that they were part of a trial. That article and the scandal itself became known as ‘the unfortunate experiment’ and led to a government inquiry into unethical research practices. In hindsight that article is probably the most consequential work of journalism ever published by Metro magazine, which has all but expired now.

The Cartwright Inquiry of 1987-88 instigated as a result of the expose in print was a watershed moment in patient rights in New Zealand. It led to the creation of a Health and Disability Commissioner and a shift to patient-centred health care giving patient rights the force of law in New Zealand. This was a world first.

By now Fertility Action was recognised as a credible, evidence-based women’s health advocacy group. From the late 80s, with seed funding from the Health department, Fertility Action began a Women’s Health Information Service ‘run by women, for women’ and published a range of material on women’s health issues and contributed to other inquiries. They continued to lobby to make the health system more responsive to women’s needs.

A video outlining this background is on their website and also features an essay by Sandra Coney. The essay traces Fertility Action’s history from 1984 to 1993 when Fertility Action changed its name to Women’s Health Action (WHA). Those of us who have followed the infestation of gender ideology into the nation’s institutions, can’t help but notice the language in the video. After informing listeners about the name change, the voiceover talks about their work “advocating for consumer focused healthcare and promoting gender as a significant social determinant of health.” What’s wrong with the more accurate word sex?

The next phase of WHA’s history from 1994 - 2020 is outlined in an essay written by George Parker and Isis McKay. Parker is described elsewhere as a Pākehā non-binary trans person and senior lecturer in health service delivery in Te Kura Tātai Hauora, School of Health at Te Herenga Waka, Victoria University of Wellington.

Nevertheless the essay reports that WHA’s work throughout this time continued to address issues particular to women - breastfeeding, regulation of assisted reproductive technologies, breast cancer treatment and reproductive health care. The final sentence assures us that:

“The issues that spurred the founding of WHA remain strongly relevant in 2019, and the promotion of women’s health and wellbeing remain at the heart of its work.”

Parker is not on the WHA staff website but those that are (about a dozen now) are clearly gender ideologues. How can I tell? All except two (shout-out to Kelsi Cox and Tasha Wharerau) have pronouns in their bios. The force of gender woo is strong with these people.

The irony that WHA refuses to recognise is that this ideology has led to another ‘unfortunate experiment’ - the medication and mutilation of gender-distressed young people, an experiment that has been shown to have been founded on weak evidence with devastating results. Sadly, the organisation formed to prevent something similar ever happening to young women and girls again has now capitulated to an ideology that is, in practice, both misogynistic and homophobic.

Sandra Coney

As an early advocate for Fertility Action, I am appalled by the dismal response from WHA to a bill that would enshrine the definition of biological women in law. I wondered what co-founder Sandra Coney thought about the stance taken by the organisation she started over 40 years ago. So I asked her. Here is her response in full. The highlights in bold are my only addition.

“Women’s Health Action’s foundations were based on the biological roles of women, and for women to have control over their bodies. The organisation fought for the human rights of women through the Cartwright Inquiry which revealed that women had been part of an experiment without their consent.

“What happened to those women, some of whom died and all of whom suffered trauma, was because they were biological women. It is insulting to suggest that trans women could suffer the same trauma and harm as they do not have the biology that would enable those same injuries to take place.

“As one of the founders of WHA, I cannot understand how far the organisation has shifted from its founding feminist principles, such that it currently sees biological reality as unimportant. It is not the only feminist organisation that has been co-opted into trans-ideology in an effort to be seen as inclusive. The bill that it is rejecting would have put a stake in the ground on behalf of women, and in the current bizarre climate, that needs to happen.

“If women’s organisations won’t defend women, who will? Women fought for decades to establish that sex matters and that women are entitled to equality with males only to be told now that sex is a social construct and can be adopted as a matter of style and choice.”

I have sent her comments to WHA general manager Isis McKay, asking if, in the light of these comments by their co-founder, the organisation would reconsider their stance. If not, their claim to be evidence-based is exposed as being utterly meaningless.